Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

The court ruled 7-0 that bosses can fire employees they see as an “irresistible attraction,” even if the employees have not engaged in flirtatious behavior or otherwise done anything wrong. Such firings may be unfair, but they are not unlawful discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act because they are motivated by feelings and emotions, not gender, Justice Edward Mansfield wrote.

And here I was thinking we were moving forward on equality. DOH! Glad I don't play the ponies. I suck at predicting.

It is until you realize that due to gender disparity in management, the chance that your boss is an heterosexual man is much higher than hetero woman or homo man, therefor this ruling allowed to be jurisprudence would predominentely hit women.

in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting, once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing, according to the opinion.
He also once allegedly remarked about her infrequent sex life by saying, “that’s like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it.”

Knight and Nelson – both married with children – started exchanging text messages, mostly about personal matters, such as their families. Knight’s wife, who also worked in the dental office, found out about the messages and demanded Nelson be fired.

Maybe the wording of the ruling leaves a lot to be desired, and maybe the fired worker's legal defense had some merit. But it sounds like there may very well have been at least some flirting on both the boss' and the employee's parts and the dentist's wife put her foot down.

This is really a convenient ruling for me. When ladies ask me if I am employed I can respond "I used to have my own successful business, but I was forced to fire myself for excessive hotness! Now let's go over to this cozy little spot in the corner and talk about it....."

Think of it as affirmative action for ugly people, who have been statistically shown to be oppressed in the workplace (and in life).

__________________As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

I think the issue might be that she filed the wrong kind of complaint. They're saying it's not a Civil Rights issue in particular, because she wasn't fired strictly on the basis of her gender - which is true, because the boss ONLY employs women and they weren't all fired.

What could be argued better is that it's a case of sexual harassment, because her firing implies that she would have sex with him. She intentionally did not file that way, because she didn't think there was enough evidence. I think her firing and the reasons thereof are plenty.

"Knight is a very religious and moral individual, and he sincerely believed that firing Nelson would be best for all parties, he [Knight’s attorney, Stuart Cochrane] said."

Yes, fire a loyal employee of ten years and place her family into a position of financial hardship, all because you can't keep your sexual urges under control. That sure sounds like the moral thing to do!

Knight fired Nelson and gave her one month’s severance. He later told Nelson’s husband that he worried he was getting too personally attached and feared he would eventually try to start an affair with her.

He's a pig, but that wasn't the question before the court. The question was whether there were any statutes that made it illegal, and being a pig is not illegal in general. Perhaps there should be some specific law covering cases such as this, but nothing presented in this thread tells me that there are, at least not any that were used as the basis for the complaint.

__________________"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

But those that do the firing will only get caught if they're dumb enough to state their unlawful reason for terminating someone. At-will state employers don't have to give a reason at all for termination.

__________________All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

But those that do the firing will only get caught if they're dumb enough to state their unlawful reason for terminating someone. At-will state employers don't have to give a reason at all for termination.

And that's where Knight is a clown as well as a pig. He could easily have given a bland reason for firing Nelson instead of calling her (in effect) a she-devil. I hope there is some action that can be taken against the clown.

__________________A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

It'd be nice if everybody was able to exercise rational self-control in all areas of their lives. But reality isn't like that. We don't tell an alcoholic, "keep booze in the house; just don't drink any".

We don't tell a philanderer, "spend time with the objects of your attraction, but don't hit on them".

We don't tell the girl attracted to bad boys (or the fellow attracted to bad girls, or to bad boys, etc.) "hang out with all the bad boys you like, but don't hook up with any of them".

No. We tell them, "if it's a problem for you, if it's a trigger for you, if it's an area of personal weakness for you, put some distance between you and it. If you see it coming cross over to the other side of the street. Walk the other way."

In this case, what? "Life's too short. Save your marriage, save your business. Get on with your life. Like you need this to be a problem you have to deal with, on top of everything else."

It'd be nice if everybody was able to exercise rational self-control in all areas of their lives. But reality isn't like that. We don't tell an alcoholic, "keep booze in the house; just don't drink any".

We don't tell a philanderer, "spend time with the objects of your attraction, but don't hit on them".

We don't tell the girl attracted to bad boys (or the fellow attracted to bad girls, or to bad boys, etc.) "hang out with all the bad boys you like, but don't hook up with any of them".

No. We tell them, "if it's a problem for you, if it's a trigger for you, if it's an area of personal weakness for you, put some distance between you and it. If you see it coming cross over to the other side of the street. Walk the other way."

In this case, what? "Life's too short. Save your marriage, save your business. Get on with your life. Like you need this to be a problem you have to deal with, on top of everything else."

The problem with that is "I can't deal with this person"->She gets fired.

__________________As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

The problem with that is "I can't deal with this person"->She gets fired.

It's a crap situation all around, and the jerk should have probably never hired her in the first place.

But what is he supposed to do? Quit his own business? Is there any other way for an employer to sever an unwanted employer-employee relationship, except by firing the employee?

Everywhere I've been, the customary severance is two week's pay. He gave her double that, which is pretty generous. And if this were to happen in California, the fact that he's not firing her "for cause" means she's also entitled to unemployment insurance payments.

What else do you want? That she stay in a relationship with a jerk boss whose healthiest course of action is to sever that relationship?

What would your advice be, if it was your friend who was struggling with this? "Sure, she's triggering your weakness, the the place in your life where you lack self-control, where you're prone to bad judgement and life-damaging mistakes, but keep her around anyway. Pretend that this time it's going to be alright. Pretend your marriage isn't in jeopardy. Pretend you're not just one harassment lawsuit away from losing your entire business. Pretend you totally need to have this problem in your life right now."

Or would your advice be, "get her out of your life, man. Give her a generous severance package--the most generous you can afford. Make sure she's eligible for unemployment insurance payments. But do it now. Get her out of your life as soon as possible. This is a problem you don't need."

__________________curi0usMany kids grow up in environments where if the worse thing they had to deal with was a pervy gym teacher wanting to **** them they would considere themselves to be privileged and living the good life.bigredhomophobes are not nearly as widespread or common as the oh-woe-are-the-poor-oppressed-gays whiners would have you believe.

What about this part:Maybe the wording of the ruling leaves a lot to be desired, and maybe the fired worker's legal defense had some merit. But it sounds like there may very well have been at least some flirting on both the boss' and the employee's parts and the dentist's wife put her foot down.

Read further the woman says she saw him as a father figure and never was flirting. The decription of it "as flirting" is actually the dentist side.

As to what he could do? Control himself, seek help. The victim is being blamed here.

It doesn't seem to me like anyone is blaming the victim. Sometimes the best solution to a bad relationship is to break up, regardless of who's at fault, and regardless of whether one party wants to continue the relationship. Sometimes the party that wants to continue the relationship is the one who should be breaking it off.

Sometimes marriages end in divorce. You wanna say "control himself, seek help" is the magic bullet that would save this relationship?

My post seems to have been ignored. I shall repeat it:
What about this part:

Quote:

in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting, once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing, according to the opinion.
He also once allegedly remarked about her infrequent sex life by saying, “that’s like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it.”

Knight and Nelson – both married with children – started exchanging text messages, mostly about personal matters, such as their families. Knight’s wife, who also worked in the dental office, found out about the messages and demanded Nelson be fired.

...It sounds like there may very well have been at least some flirting on both the boss' and the employee's parts and the dentist's wife put her foot down.

Employers can expect employees to dress appropriately. They were texting each other. It sounds like the relationship was indeed moving in a dangerous direction. Maybe there were other solutions, but this is not a case of an employer simply firing an employee because the employer lusted after her.

My post seems to have been ignored. I shall repeat it:
What about this part:

...It sounds like there may very well have been at least some flirting on both the boss' and the employee's parts and the dentist's wife put her foot down.

Employers can expect employees to dress appropriately. They were texting each other. It sounds like the relationship was indeed moving in a dangerous direction. Maybe there were other solutions, but this is not a case of an employer simply firing an employee because the employer lusted after her.